relaxation paradox

[lostinidlewonder]

If you seriously think you are in command of absolutes, where a specific part of music dictates that energy should correctly be visualised from something so specific as either the fingertip or a specific joint, I am truly bemused. I have nothing more to add.

So to visualise and imagine emotions while playing a piece also should be thrown out the door because it cannot be measured scientifically as effecting an exact part of your body? Many sensitive pianists will admit when they feel the emotion strongly within their own psyche that it effects how they play and helps them present the music better. It is this visualisation that can help one express themselves musically quite wonderfully. So too can visualising the energy flowing through your body while you play.

You should contact Volodos and tell him that his way of playing the piano is objectively wrong- seeing as he often uses whole arm movements for his softest dynamics of all. Why send him your objective list- so the knows the correct joint to visualise the energy coming from?

Sometimes playing the softest dynamic is effected by the room that you are playing in so Volodos is probably projecting his volume based on the size of the room, perfectly fine. One might find it appropriate to play louder than they would in a small practice room if they are in a large concert hall when producing their softest dynamics because most people would not be able to hear it otherwise.

[nyiregyhazi]

Leave the strawman arguments aside. I already stated this a number of times- because I happen to disagree with YOUR SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE TAKE ON AN ISSUE (portrayed as if it were an absolute truth), it does not follow that I refuse to to recognise the broad issues or that I do not have countless subjective perceptions of my own. I have already made it clear what my stance is, so I politely ask you not misrepresent my stance with false inferences- that run in direct conflict to what I have already stated.

Also, I have never heard softer sounds in any concert hall than those made by Volodos. It's not the old "play to the back of the hall" issue. He regularly uses the whole arm for truly soft playing- making a complete mockery of the ridiculous idea that your extraordinarily over-specific list is anything other than subjective and individual. Is it so hard to acknowledge that your personal approach is not an absolute prequisite for piano playing- or that there are 1000 different ways to visualise things? Funnily enough, if a person doesn't abide by your specific list, it does not automatically follow that they reject visualisation. It means they do not share YOUR subjective approach to it.

[lostinidlewonder]

I already stated this a number of times- because I happen to disagree with YOUR SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE TAKE ON AN ISSUE..... so I politely ask you not misrepresent my stance with false inferences- that run in direct conflict to what I have already stated.

There is a difference between subjective and contextual. My visualisation of energy is contextual not subjective. But you are free to think it is subjective if you want to even though I have shown it is not using the extreme pppp and ffff visualisations as examples. Subjective means that it can mean anything, just like you tried to express by replacing my visualisation points with colors, if you replaced it with colors it is totally subjective. But the visualisation of points of the body is not subjective but merely requires context to fully appreciate. Even without context many experiences pianists will agree that these energies can generally be visualised to come from these points while playing.

He regularly uses the whole arm for truly soft playing- making a complete mockery of the ridiculous idea that your extraordinarily specific list is anything other than subjective. Is it so hard to acknowledge that your personal approach is not an absolute prequisite for piano playing?

Mockery, ridiculous, extraordinarily specific, subjective.... I guess I would get a 0/5 rating from you if I ever made a product called Visualising Energy while playing piano

Again you are trying to say that I am trying to say that my way is the only way, which I have not said at all at any point in time. So you again are just talking to yourself here. Again talking about subjectivity which is a wrong word to decribe my contextual concept but you are free to think that it is subjective that is ok! No one is taking that right away from you but none of my students (or piano teachers I have discussed this with in person) think it is subjective at all.

[nyiregyhazi]

"There is a difference between subjective and contextual. My visualisation of energy is contextual not subjective."

Subjective and contextual are not opposite qualities. Subjective and objective are. The fact that Volodos uses SUCH a different approach to your own with great success proves beyond any reasonable doubt that your approach is not an objective absolute and therefore subjective. Context is a whole different issue. The fact that something is applied to particular contexts has zero to do with whether it applies objectively or subjectively. It's a totally independent issue. Imaginary energy does not become any less subjective when it is applied to a specific context- because there countless different ways of operating in that very same context, that have zero to do with imaginary energy.

Objectivity is to understand how literal energy is sourced via movement from the knuckle of from the shoulder etc. I think there is great value in distinguish where energy can literally be sourced from in a given action and where it can simply be imagined. However, even there, nobody can say it as anything less than subjective to pinpoint an exact place where energy is supposed to be provided for a given dynamic. Even there, the actual balance is subjective. When speaking of sensations of energy in a fingertip, it is the epitome of subjectivity- without even attaching anything to a specific dynamic level (which adds a whole extra level of subjectivity).

Wouldn't it be rather more interesting to discuss the subject? Or are you absolutely intent on trying to redefine the widely accepted concept of subjectivity, rather than acknowledge where it transparently lies?

[lostinidlewonder]

"There is a difference between subjective and contextual. My visualisation of energy is contextual not subjective."

Subjective and contextual are not opposite qualities. Subjective and objective are.

I didn't say they where opposites. I am merely replacing your incorrect definition of my concept with the correct definition.

The fact that Volodos uses SUCH a different approach to your own with great success proves beyond any reasonably doubt that your approach is not an objective absolute and therefore
subjective.

You are using Volodos as an example as if you have exclusive personal contact with him and fully understand his technique. If so please quote him. My approach is contextual not subjective. Should I say it again? My approach is contextual not subjective.. Maybe one more time..My approach is contextual not subjective. Don't worry I got a lot of My approach is contextual not subjective up my sleeves

Context is a whole different issue. The fact that something is applied to particular contexts has zero to do with whether it applies objectively or subjectively.

Huh? If it is not objective it must be subjective and it cannot be contextually based? Well that is the world you live in not me!

Imaginary energy does not become any less subjective when it is applied to a specific context- because there countless different ways of operating that have zero to do with imaginary energy flowing from a fingertip.

This is incessant babble. If there is countless different ways of operating then don't you think that one of these countless different ways might include visualising flowing from the fingertips? Countless means a lot you know. Your logic saddens me.

Objectivity is to understand how literal energy is sourced via movement from the knuckle of from the shoulder etc. When speaking of sensations of energy in a fingertip, it is the epitome of subjectivity- before even being attached to a specific dynamic level.

Being 100% objective is not something that relates to the Arts. We feel emotions when we play this is not objective, yet it inspires us to play pieces with more expression. So in your world you need objectivity, you should be a scientist not a musician. Music is art, you seem to have forgotten this.

[nyiregyhazi]

I didn't say they where opposites. I am merely replacing your incorrect definition of my concept with the correct definition.

You are using Volodos as an example as if you have exclusive personal contact with him and fully understand his technique. If so please quote him. My approach is contextual not subjective.

If something is not definably objective it is therefore subjective. All it takes is the existence of one accomplished pianist who does not share your specific approach to prove it is not objective.

 If you want to argue against  the accredited meaning of terminology within the English language (rather than on pianistic issues) I have no further interest.

Once again, I am not going to respond to strawman arguments that imply that simply because I disagree with YOUR subjective approach I therefore disagree with all subjective approaches. Attribute opinions to someone else. I have made my actual opinions quite clear.

[lostinidlewonder]

If something is not definably objective it is therefore subjective. All it takes is the existence of one accomplished pianist who does not share your specific approach to prove it is not objective.

There is none, only those who do not have a large repertoire nor teach. I even have discussed this with one particular titan of the concert pianist world whom I studied with and he agreed and elaborated. Like I said before if the visualisation doesn't help you can solve it other ways, music has many approaches.

If you want to argue against  the accredited meaning of terminology within the English language (rather than on pianistic issues) I have no further interest.

So long you realize that I strongly believe that my visualisations are contextual not subjective.

Once again, I am not going to respond to strawman arguments that imply that simply because I disagree with YOUR subjective approach does not mean I disagree with all subjective approaches. Attribute opinions to someone else. I have made my actual opinions quite clear.

My approach is not subjective it is contextual.

You only disagree with my approach to visualisation of energy because you tirelessly write blogs on your idea of the science of piano movement. So it is no surprise you are confused when someone throw concepts which you cannot measure with your tools. It is sad however because if you have a very large repertoire like most professional concerting pianists and respected teachers you would realize that my visualisation is not subjective at all and by testing it with the many pieces you know you may see how the measuring stick bends with context.

[nyiregyhazi]

There is none, only those who do not have a large repertoire nor teach. I even have discussed this with one particular titan of the concert pianist whom I studied with and he agreed and elaborated.
So long you realize that I strongly believe that my visualisations are contextual not subjective.
You only disagree with my subjective approach to visualisation of energy because you tirelessly write blogs on your idea of the science of piano movement. So it is  no surprise you are confused when someone throw concepts which you cannot measure with your tools. It is sad however because if you have a very large repertoire like most professional concerting pianists and respected teachers you would realize that my visualisation is not subjective at all and by testing it with the many pieces you know you may see how the measuring stick bends with context.

The same strawman arguments? I visualise energy- BUT NOT AS YOU DO! You seem to believe that anyone thinking about energy in any way proves your SPECIFIC list? It does not. Seeing as you claim to be able to speak for every pianist in the world, I have no desire to prolong this any further- so stop attributing false opinions to me. I know very accomplished pianists who laugh about the concept of energy flow. You do not speak for all. You speak for yourself and SOME others.


I disagree with YOU and YOUR specifics- that you are unable to understand as being subjective. Not with the concept of thinking about energy or perceiving parts of the body. If you just want to claim that all good pianists use the exact same subjective details that you do, I have no interest in discussing this further.

PS. if you feel that the mere fact that something is applied to a context renders it impossible for it to be subjective, I suggest that you take a look in a dictionary. The fact is contextual has no more bearing on subjectivity vs. objectivity than the fact that an elephant is grey has any bearing on whether it is an animal or a plant.

[lostinidlewonder]

I visualise energy- BUT NOT AS YOU DO!

Great, I thought you had no ability to visualise since it was not objective for you. I never completely described the context to my visualisations because then I would be writing a thesis pretty much. I merely had to decribe it briefly as a point of interest to share with others. Obviously you are the only one who has retracted in horror by it and found the need to discuss it in such detail trying to prove it is subjective continually.

You seem to believe that anyone thinking about energy in any way proves your SPECIFIC list?

No I didn't and you have no evidence to quote me with. I said I am not trying to prove it because it takes too much detail.

Seeing as you claim to be able to speak for every pianist in the world, I have no desire to prolong this any further- so stop attributing false opinions to me. I disagree with YOU and YOUR specifics. Not the concept of thinking about energy or perceiving parts of the body.

And that is ok because you mean nothing to me and I have no motive to convince you of anything. But because this is a discussion forum we can discuss ISSUES not the person and I will happily debate with you that my visualisations are not subjective.

....The fact is contextual has no more bearing on subjectivity vs. objectivity than the fact that an elephant is grey has any bearing on whether it is an animal or a plant.

Contexual means the issue requires observing it in action in many instances and observing how it is dealt with. This is not a 1/0 yes not type information. Through observing many situations however one will see that the visualised points of energy run in line with the context, however it may bend now and then, something that only will be understood if you fully understand the context. Thus it is far and away from being subjective, where subjective means it can literally mean anything at all and it all dpends on the indiviual, this is not true since I gave an example that playing ffff does not encourage anyone to feel that the energy is coming solely from the fingers.

[nyiregyhazi]

Great, I thought you had no ability to visualise since it was not objective for you.

Then try reading what I have to say, before attributing false opinions to me. I have said this over and over. I'm done here. Google the word "subjective" and take a look at the definition. If you want to debate that any further, see how you get on in a Philosophy or English language forum.

[lostinidlewonder]

Great, I thought you had no ability to visualise since it was not objective for you.

Then try reading what I have to say, before attributing false opinions to me. I have said this over and over. I'm done here.

I like where the length of post are going, hopefully it dwindles to nothing now I have not been talking about you but merely defend the stance that my visualisations are contexual not subjective. So no need to tangent and say I was creating false opinions of you.

[nyiregyhazi]

Great, I thought you had no ability to visualise since it was not objective for you.
I like where the length of post are going, hopefully it dwindles to nothing now I have not been talking about you but merely defend the stance that my visualisations are contexual not subjective. So no need to tangent and say I was creating false opinions of you.

"So to visualise and imagine emotions while playing a piece also should be thrown out the door because it cannot be measured scientifically as effecting an exact part of your body?"

"Being 100% objective is not something that relates to the Arts. We feel emotions when we play this is not objective, yet it inspires us to play pieces with more expression. So in your world you need objectivity, you should be a scientist not a musician. Music is art, you seem to have forgotten this."

Quite, no need at all...


I never argued against subjective issues. Rather, I argued your failure to understand the difference between extreme individual subjectivity and objectivity. Now, if you'd only like to look up the definition of subjectivity, I think we're done here.

[lostinidlewonder]

"So to visualise and imagine emotions while playing a piece also should be thrown out the door because it cannot be measured scientifically as effecting an exact part of your body?"

"Being 100% objective is not something that relates to the Arts. We feel emotions when we play this is not objective, yet it inspires us to play pieces with more expression. So in your world you need objectivity, you should be a scientist not a musician. Music is art, you seem to have forgotten this."

Quite, no need at all...

You are in the minute minority if this is your stance.

I never argued against subjective issues. Rather, I argued your failure to understand the difference between extreme individual subjectivity and objectivity.

Against subjective issues? What do you mean? You argued that my ideas where subjective.

There is no failure in my behalf to see the differnece between subjective and objective, this was you talking to yourself I never brought it up since my visualising of energy is contextual.

Now, if you'd only like to look up the definition of subjectivity, I think we're done here.

I like how you try to turn the tables. It is you who are trying to talk about subjectivity where my concept has nothing to do with this at all. If my concept was subjective then people would be producing ffff sounds with their fingers only, this does no occur with normal pianists. If my visualisation of energy was completely subjective then there would be no need to consider point of the body, but considering the points of the body helps one feel a difference and a connection to the dynamic. If you refuse to use this tool this is fine, but you have no evidence to say that my concept is subjective because you have no idea how to use it in the first place.

[nyiregyhazi]

"You are in the minute minority if this is your stance."

That was in response to:

"So no need to tangent and say I was creating false opinions of you."

It is not my stance and never has been- as I have repeatedly stated in my posts. I quoted that to illustrate what nonsense you are falsely attributing to me. Simply because I happen not to agree with you, you portray a ludicrous stance as if were the only possible alternative belief to your own. It's called a strawman argument.

"I like how you try to turn the tables. It is you who are trying to talk about subjectivity where my concept has nothing to do with this at all. If my concept was subjective then people would be producing ffff sounds with their fingers only, this does no occur with normal pianists."

No, if concept were objective, people would be doing EXACTLY as you describe it for every dynamic. They do not- which immediately illustrates subjectivity. Would you please get a dictionary out? Or are you going to spend all day arguing against a universally accepted definition?

[lostinidlewonder]

.......It's called a strawman argument.

I don't care what it is called I have the freedom to say whatever I like no matter how you want to tag it. Logically if you refuse to see visualisation in terms of energy control you also would refuse to see visualisation in terms of expressive control which also effects physically how we play. If I am wrong then it is just peculiar that you refuse to consider visualisation of energy through the body just as valid and visualisation of emotion when dealing with expression.




"I like how you try to turn the tables. It is you who are trying to talk about subjectivity where my concept has nothing to do with this at all. If my concept was subjective then people would be producing ffff sounds with their fingers only, this does no occur with normal pianists."

No, if concept were objective, people would be doing EXACTLY as you describe it for every dynamic. They do not- which immediately illustrates subjectivity. Would you please get a dictionary out? Or are you going to spend all day arguing against a universally accepted definition?

My visualisation of energy is contextual not subjective. It is clearly not subjective otherwise there would be people producing ffff with their fingers only.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I don't care what it is called I have the freedom to say whatever I like no matter how you want to tag it. Logically if you refuse to see visualisation in terms of energy control you also would refuse to see visualisation in terms of expressive control which also effects physically how we play."

Say what you like. Don't imply I'm the one who said it though, please. The second sentence is another strawman argument. I do not "refuse", so stop attributing opinions to me. I have stated over and over that I do visualise energy but NOT IN THE SPECIFIC WAY YOU DO! This is just tiresome. You're responding without actually reading what I am saying. You are simply inventing stuff to argue against- that I have neither stated nor implied to be my view.


What you have done is to fail to notice the boundaries between the objective and the subjective. When a personal visualises energy from the shoulder they can ACTUALLY transfer energy from there for big sounds. That is objective. When a person visualises energy from the fingertip, independently of the joint they CANNOT transfer literal energy from there. That is therefore subjective.

I think you need to stop and distinguish between what relates to literal energy and what relates to imaginary energy or chakra. Because a small element of your very specific explanation relates to the objective fact that high energy levels tends to require stronger muscles, it does not follow that everything else is rooted in objectivity. That it is objectively necessary to use bigger muscles for the loudest playing has no bearing on anything else you specified. It is not objectively necessary to imagine energy coming from places where no energy can be provided. It is YOUR subjective approach. I'm not even arguing that there's anything wrong with that, for Christ's sake! I'm just stunned that you believe you are in command of something objective, rather something personal to yourself that plenty of others function perfectly well without.

[lostinidlewonder]

What you have done is to fail to notice the boundaries between the objective and the subjective.

That is ok because it has nothing to do with anything I am talking about only what you are talking about.

When a personal visualises energy from the shoulder they can ACTUALLY transfer energy from there for big sounds. That is objective. When a person visualises energy from the fingertip, independently of the joint they CANNOT transfer literal energy from there. That is therefore subjective.

Maybe in your world. Nothing I am talking about is about subjectivity, the words subjective and objective are coming from you trying to describe my visualisation concept, I am using the word contextual to describe it and this is the truthful definition. And who really cares how you want to tag my concept? You have no evidence to back up what you are saying merely your own opinion.

I think you need to stop and distinguish between what relates to literal energy and what relates to imaginary energy or chakra. Because a small element of your very specific explanation relates to the objective fact that high energy levels tends to require stronger muscles, it does not follow that everything else is rooted in objectivity.

I do not need to make that distinction at all because I can test what I am doing based on hundred of pieces of music. My example of stronger muscles for louder sounds highlights the point that visualising energy is not subjective but certainly has rules. If my concept was totally subjective then there would be people producing loud sounds with their fingertips. Now you want to go into more detail but I have already said there is no point because you need many pieces to highlight different aspects of it.

[nyiregyhazi]

sub·jec·tive
   [suhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

If you think all good pianists follow the exact same specific "rules" for visualisation (for each and every dynamic level) as you do, I will leave you to that remarkable belief. As for your implication that a single instance of correlation proves a whole rule (regardless of such counter-examples as Volodos' approach to soft playing), I am not even going to go there.

[lostinidlewonder]

Definition of subjective is irrelevant since it is you not me who is trying to say that my concept of visualisation is subjective. It is not subjective it is contextual requires pieces of music to fully understand. But this is not to say that you can appreciate small facets of my visualisation without playing pieces, but it will not be a complete understanding.

If you think all good pianists follow the exact same "rules" for visualisation as you do, I will leave you to that belief.

I don't believe that they all do what I visualise and in fact since each person experiences different pieces in their lifetime one would expect that their exact visualisations will all end up being slightly different.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't believe that they all do what I visualise and in fact since each person experiences different pieces in their lifetime one would expect that their exact visualisations will all end up being slightly different.

So cross-reference that with the definition of subjectivity and I think we're done. The fact I brought up the word does not mean you can exempt yourself from having it accurately applied to you. I'm amazed this has finally gotten somewhere (even if you do included the veiled implication that there might be no difference from person to person, if they played the same pieces as each other)...

[lostinidlewonder]

So cross-reference that with the definition of subjectivity and I think we're done. I'm amazed this has finally gotten somewhere...

It is not subjective. Just because many people learn different pieces doesn't mean that how they visual energy is subjective. I said you will come to similar conclusion, you will NOT see anyone producing F tones with their fingers in isolation, you will not see people throw their arms into P passages. So there is no subjectivity, but how the visualisation of energy bends with context to pieces is what we want to try and understand, and this only comes with many many pieces.

[nyiregyhazi]

Just because many people learn different pieces doesn't mean that how they visual energy is subjective. I sai dyou will come to similar conclusion, you will NOT see anyone producing F tones with their fingers in isolation, you will not see people throw their arms into P passages.

Except for Volodos, regarding piano. Hmm... I must have forgotten to mention that over and over again? And except for myself regarding forte. I tend to keep arm energies out of it until at least ff. Horowitz widely played forte from the hand too.
 
I give up.

[lostinidlewonder]

Except for Volodos, regarding piano. And except for myself regarding forte. And Horowitz too.

Projecting on the concert stage requires us to play louder than normal.

Again the hand is not a finger, you can certainly produce forte with the hand I agree.

[nyiregyhazi]

Projecting on the concert stage requires us to play louder than normal.

So I also forgot to mention that he produces what is genuinely the softest dynamic I ever heard in a concert hall? Why are you flogging this dead horse? You are not in command the absolutes that you claim to be. Volodos plays very soft from the whole arm. Is it so hard to acknowledge that you do not personally define the limits of the "correct" way to produce any given dynamic level? Were your explanation not so pointlessly overspecific, you might reasonably be able to speak of some broad objective issues. Once you go into exact specifics, you are in totally subjective waters.

[lostinidlewonder]

So I also forgot to mention that he produces what is genuinely the softest dynamics I ever heard in a concert hall? You are not in command the absolutes that you claim to be. Volodos plays very soft from the whole arm.

The arms may move but the energy is visualised coming closer to the fingers. Again relating it to a piece of music commands what we have to do, this is why my visualisation of energy is so contextual. If you could talk with Volodos in person and discuss his P touches you might have something interesting to quote. What you see in them means nothing unless they have discussed it with you in person or written documents decribing their technique. I don't talk about all the concert pianists I have been taugh by and what they do because I don't know their hands as well as they do, I however know my hands extremely well and also the hands of 100+ students over the years.

...Is it so hard to acknowledge that you do not personally define the limits of the "correct" way to produce any given dynamic level?

I have never suggested this but certainly I can be confident that no one produces ffff from the fingers only or pppp with the use of the arms adding energy to the playing.

Were your explanation not so pointlessly overspecific, you might reasonably be able to speak of some broad objective issues. Once you go into exact specifics, you are in totally subjective waters.

You have not pointed out with any evidence that my concept of visualisation is "pointlessly overspecific" and merely highlight your own unsubstantiated opinion.  My concerpt of visualisation of energy is not in subjective waters at all since it is contextual.

[nyiregyhazi]

The arms may move but the energy is visualised coming closer to the fingers. Again relating it to a piece of music commands what we have to do, this is why my visualisation of energy is so contextual. If you could talk with Volodos in person and discuss his P touches you might have something interesting to quote, but what you see in them means nothing unless they have discussed it with you in person or written documents decribing their technique. I don't talk about all the concert pianists I have been taugh by and what they do because I don't know their hands as well as they do, I however know my hands extremely well and also the hands of 100+ students over the years.

So, in PPPP his arm just goes up and down by accident- while he zones in on his fingertips (not the joint but specifically the tip) and visualises energy flowing from this specific point? He told you that did he? And unless we can speak to him, we're going to have to assume that his approach will most probably fits YOUR personal approach to visualisation- rather than any of the near infinite possibilities that would more readily account for the existence of large arm movements? And we're also going to assume that he shifts attention to the joint for PPP, just like in your "objective" list- unless he can tell us otherwise?

For Christ's sake stop twisting everything and have some perspective on what is subjective. This is extremely silly. The fact that we don't know exactly how Volodos visualises the flow of energy certainly does not imply that he probably involves the same overwhelmingly subjective specifics that you do!  Especially considering how much arm movement he uses in quiet playing!

[lostinidlewonder]

So, in PPPP his arm just goes up and down by accident- while he zones in on his fingertips (not the joint but specifically the tip) and visualises energy flowing from this specific point? He told you that did he? And unless we can speak to him, we're going to assume that his approach will most probably fits YOUR personal approach to visualisation- rather than one that more readily account for the existence of large arm movements? And we're also going to assume that he shifts attention to the joint for PPP, just like in your "objective" list- unless he can tell us otherwise?

And now you see how stupid it is to try and throw big names trying to support yourself. I have not done this, but you have.

In all honesty I will never accept my visualision of energy is subjective because I have proof that it is not, listening to how all my students understand it and apply it to all their different pieces and also including my large repertoire from almost 30 years of playing. And you know this visualisation is a very short observation, it does not constitute a huge % of your playing attention. I said very early on that it is a small point in my initial post.

[nyiregyhazi]

And now you see how stupid it is to try and throw big names trying to support yourself. I have not done this, but you have.

 I have not the slightest idea what relevance his fame has. What I find interesting is that leap to the assumption that he necessarily visualises quiet playing specifically in the fingertip, despite visibly transferring energy from his whole arm in soft playing. Most likely he shifts the focus between all kinds of different areas of his mechanism. Who knows? Nobody can claim to be in a position of knowing the specific part he thinks about for each dynamic, or whether he specifically thinks about energy transfer at all. I am bemused as to what possess you to think that you are able to determine exactly how pianists visualise every individual dynamic, or what leads you dismiss the idea that there are countless different ways to go about it.

"In all honesty I will never accept my visualision of energy is subjective because I have proof that it is not, listening to how all my students understand it and apply it to all their different pieces and also including my large repertoire from almost 30 years of playing. And you know this visualisation is a very short observation, it does not constitute a huge % of your playing attention. I said very early on that it is a small point in my initial post."

Well, you've got me there. Now that you have conclusively "proved" that all good pianists use your exact scheme of visualisation for each dynamic level, there's nothing more that I could possibly say. I think I'll head over to my scores and start notating which part of my arm I should correctly visualise each dynamic from, to make sure I get it "correct". Seeing as we are dealing in absolutes and not a subjective issue, I'll have to correct my wide range of current visualisations (that typically involve a whole range of simultaneous sensations in both finger AND ARM)  and replace them with your paint-by-numbers approach to each dynamic.

[mcdiddy1]

The arms may move but the energy is visualised coming closer to the fingers. Again relating it to a piece of music commands what we have to do, this is why my visualisation of energy is so contextual. If you could talk with Volodos in person and discuss his P touches you might have something interesting to quote. What you see in them means nothing unless they have discussed it with you in person or written documents decribing their technique. I don't talk about all the concert pianists I have been taugh by and what they do because I don't know their hands as well as they do, I however know my hands extremely well and also the hands of 100+ students over the years.

I have to admit when you were talking about pp in the fingers and ff in the arms it did not make a great deal of sense because you could make large sounds from the fingers only and soft sounds with the arms as well.  I think from the concept that the smaller the joint you use the smaller the sound works in most cases in certain situations but in fast passages of running sixteenth notes, the muscles in the hands should be more active. Of course I am sure you do not use this analogy to describe every aspect of piano technique so of course it may help to introduce the concept to a young student who never learned this concept. I think your idea of playing piano passages with energy and finger-tips is true and logical so although your concept is subjective and useful in most situations, there are some exceptions to to this idea.

 In higher levels of playing, you can use your arm to play soft passages, and fingers to play loud. What students play and understand is not necessarily what more pianist with advance techniques do and understand. I think this concept works well with most student literature and technique but does not always apply to higher levels of playing.

[lostinidlewonder]

I have not the slightest idea what relevance his fame has.

It is what he is, a truth. there is no point in discussing how he plays because only if you have had personal discussion with him or read about his writing on how he plays, we can't say anything. What you observe in him playing is totally subjective since you cannot feel what he is feeling and can only "think" not "know".

I am bemused as to what possess you to think that you are able to determine exactly how pianists visualise every individual dynamic, or what leads you dismiss the idea that there are countless different ways to go about it.

I have not said I know everything, nor dismissed the many paths in music, but certainly I have seen how to visualise dynamics through the results of my students, other teacher and myself.

I have taught many students so I am confident in what I type about teaching music because teaching piano is my profession and every day life and I have worked my ideas with practical experience with many different individuals. I am not merely chatting on piano forums untested idea, every dayI discuss many musical concepts with students and teacher in person. Music is my life and playing/learning the piano one of the most proficient things I can do in life. I have taught hundreds of hands how to play the piano and I have a photographic memory remember all of them individually and their challenges. Piano is my life, and I am very confident in the product I teach because I see efficient results in almost all my students. I have been taught by some of the best pianists in this world and still correspond with famous musicians and leading teachers of music. I think music every day and get paid for it.

[nyiregyhazi]

I have to admit when you were talking about pp in the fingers and ff in the arms it did not make a great deal of sense because you could make large sounds from the fingers only and soft sounds with the arms as well.  I think from the concept that the smaller the joint you use the smaller the sound works in most cases in certain situations but in fast passages of running sixteenth notes, the muscles in the hands should be more active.

Personally, I just don't like the concept at all - except in the broad sense that fingers tend to quieter playing and that the arm may be actively involved for louder playing. I'd hate to think of students trying to play quietly by scraping back with only the weaker joints of the fingers. Personally, I teach a single unified finger action- that involves straightening out the mid joints slightly while pulling from the knuckle. While I'd certainly encourage a student to perceive what goes on at the tip, I don't think I'd make any distinction between which part of the finger to think about, whether it's p or pppp. I find the same basic action is effective for all of these and consider awareness of the whole finger important at each and every level. If some people find value in specifically associating a different segment to each dynamic, that's fine for them. But it's the epitome of a subjective approach.

In my opinion, trying to isolate the very tip of the finger from action at the knuckle would cause a big danger of notes failing to sound. It's also widely said that isolating the mid-joints from the knuckle action is a potential cause of tendonitis.

[nyiregyhazi]

"It is what he is, a truth. there is no point in discussing how he plays because only if you have had personal discussion with him or read about his writing on how he plays, we can't say anything."

We can say that his arm moves. And, objectively speaking, his arm movement provides (literal) energy even in very soft playing. Do you not realise that it's your insistence that he follows a bizarrely detailed scheme of your own devising, that is made to look implausible by the fact that we don't know? You are the one claiming to know exactly how both he pianists and other pianists visualise everything, not me- so it's a pretty short-sighted argument, when you attempt to defend your supposed insider knowledge by pointing out that we actually do not know how he thinks. You think that in the absence of evidence either way, people should assume every living pianist has subjective perceptions that are going to be exactly the same as yours? Even when they clearly move in a way that involves the arm, where you say they should be focussing on a specific segment of the finger? Well, you're certainly not short on self-belief.

[lostinidlewonder]

I have to admit when you were talking about pp in the fingers and ff in the arms it did not make a great deal of sense because you could make large sounds from the fingers only and soft sounds with the arms as well.

Yes you can and you are sometimes forced into doing so based on what a piece requires. But if someone wants to produce extreme F sounds constantly isolating it in just the fingers they will tire themselves out or at least hurt their fingers, it is not normal.

I think from the concept that the smaller the joint you use the smaller the sound works in most cases in certain situations but in fast passages of running sixteenth notes, the muscles in the hands should be more active.

I agree, again you can see how context is so important. We can rattle of literally hundreds of more issues. But when you look back on all of the issues and see where we visualise the energy, most of them come from similar points.

Of course I am sure you do not use this analogy to describe every aspect of piano technique so of course it may help to introduce the concept to a young student who never learned this concept.

Technique is a vast issue and this Visualisation of Energy is a very small piece to that puzzle, nyiregyhazi just thought it important enough to debate however. My inital post however connects the visualisation of energy to fingering, of which Liszt said technique returns to always.

I think your idea of playing piano passages with energy and finger-tips is true and logical so although your concept is subjective and useful in most situations, there are some exceptions to to this idea.

This is what makes music Art, there are things that break the rules. But most of the times we walk the normal line.

In higher levels of playing, you can use your arm to play soft passages, and fingers to play loud. What students play and understand is not necessarily what more pianist with advance techniques do and understand. I think this concept works well with most student literature and technique but does not always apply to higher levels of playing.

Context of the piece is more important and just hamfistedly applying visualisation of energy constantly from the same points for each dynamic is a useless exercise. So you certainly will ind passages of music where you may want to use the arm, but that is not because of a volume issue but a technical issue (the fingering of the notes). As a side note I find that the P ranges are much more difficult to master than the F shadings based on personal experience and teaching experience.

[lostinidlewonder]

"It is what he is, a truth. there is no point in discussing how he plays because only if you have had personal discussion with him or read about his writing on how he plays, we can't say anything."

We can say that his arm moves. And, objectively speaking, his arm provides energy even in very soft playing.

If that is what you observe fine, but you dont KNOW this you only THINK this. You can only KNOW this if you go ask him in person to describe it to you. Thus I really don't care about anything you say about another pianist, just talk about yourself.

Do you not realise that it's your insistence that he follows a bizarrely detailed scheme of your own devising, that is made to look implausible by the fact that we don't know?

Your fantasy.

You are the one claiming to know exactly how pianists think....

Your fantasy again.

You think that in the absence of evidence either way, people should assume every living pianist has subjective perceptions that are going to be exactly the same as yours?

Your fantasy and my concept of visualisation is not subjective but contextual.

Even when they clearly move in a way that involves the arm, where you say they should be focussing on a specific segment of the finger?

Moving and Visualising are different.

Well, you're certainly not short on self-belief.

Irrelevant.

[nyiregyhazi]

"If that is what you observe fine, but you dont KNOW this you only THINK this. You can only KNOW this if you go ask him in person to describe it to you. Thus I really don't care about anything you say about another pianist, just talk about yourself."

So why have been claiming that your approach is not subjective? You're the one who needs to be in a position to speak for all pianists. Unless you can establish that your approach is shared by all pianists, it is therefore subjective. What are you actually trying to say? This line of argument does nothing but harms your own claims- about the absolutes you pretend to be in command of.

Also, if you wish to separate moving and visualising- why is "correct" to visualise loud playing in the upper body? Why not visualise in the hand, if it's not the same issue as where movement comes from? I can use stronger muscles while visualising other areas. So why do you insist the visualisation must occur further back for loud playing- if it's not related to movement? I frequently devote most of my focus to the hand, in even FFFFF. But your approach is apparently not subjective, so I am "wrong" to ever do so, yes?

[lostinidlewonder]

So why have been claiming that your approach is not subjective?

Because subjective means that people can take any opinion with no regard to what is normally done when it comes to playing the piano. We do not do such things and once we relate my approach with context you will understand it is not subjective at all. I already said I don't care if you think it is subjective or anyone else. I have expressed how it is not many times and if you still think it is subjective then, I have no wish to write hundreds of examples to prove it to you. I am just not going to do it because I have zero motivation to do it for free!  

You're the one who needs to be in a position to speak for all pianists.

Nope but I do speak for the students I have taught and hope to share my ideas with pianostreet like I have for all these years. Most members on pianostreet do not debate me over issues and respond instead how they do things, this avoids confrontation. You start trying to pull down my ideas which I teach professionally I am of course am going to be very interested to see any evidence you have to convince me. Teaching is my profession and if I can be corrected or improved on issues (which pianostreet has done many times over) I happily will accept it since I want the strongest teaching product as possible.

Unless you can establish that your approach is shared by all pianists, it is therefore subjective. What are you actually trying to say?

If I ask all pianists to tell me how they produce the opening chords of say Beethovens Pathetique Sonata 1st movement I think all will approach the Cminor sustained chord with some hand or arm weight. Tell me which one of you open with these chords using only your fingertips for visualisation and I will be very curious why you choose to do such strange things to produce volume. I could say that a great majority of the % of pianists will use their arm or hands to produce the forte, those that do not are in the minority and dont really statistically effect my opinion. Thus my volume idea is not subjective but very contextual requiring music to highlight the visualisation.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Because subjective means that people can take any opinion with no regard to what is normally done when it comes to playing the piano."

No. Being subjective means what the defintion I quoted earlier says. Just because you don't want to admit subjectivity where it evidently lies, does not mean that you're allowed to redefine an accepted word, for the sake of personal convenience. What subjectivity means is defined by the dictionary, not by you.

"You start trying to pull down my ideas which I teach professionally I am of course am going to be very interested to see any evidence you have to convince me. Teaching is my profession and if I can be corrected or improved on issues (which pianostreet has done many times over) I happily will accept it
since I want the strongest teaching product as possible."

I have to prove that it is not true that every good pianist visualises in the exact same way prescribed by your list? The onus of proof is on you. Perhaps you're not used to being challenged by students, but this is a forum for open debate. Teaching is my profession too. However, that is not an argument that I ever use in defence of anything I would claim to be objectively true. If something goes beyond subjectivity, I want to be damned sure I can prove it before referring to it that way. The onus of proof is on he who denies subjectivity. "I am a teacher" does not magically make the subjective into objective truth. Particularly as I know countless other teachers who would totally disagree with your explanation- many of whom are equally dogmatic about how their way is right, supposedly beyond subjectivity.


"If I ask all pianists to tell me how they produce the opening chords of say Beethovens Pathetique Sonata 1st movement I think all that all will approach the Cminor sustained chord with some hand or arm weight. Tell me which one of you open with these chords using only your fingertips and I will be very curious why you choose to do such strange things to produce volume."

I use no falling weight. You would be welcome to touch the underside of my palm, to prove that there is no arm pressure. I do it with hand movement. There are many ways to play those chords- not an objectively correct one. Also, I can use countless different visualisations while performing this specific movements. Sometimes I might focus my attention more on the hand activation. Frequently, that means perceiving the contact between the fingertip and key, and feeling everything being pushed up and away from that point. I could say the same in FFFF. I regularly perceive the action from the tip of the finger backwards- rather than from the shoulder downwards. In fact, I typically use this for the most explosive chords of all. At other times I might focus on balancing my arm-weight at the shoulder, while moving much the same,

Another time I may think "sod it" and press with the whole arm. And I might visualise that in terms of the arm pressure or in terms of the hand balancing the pressure. There are infinite possibilities. Sorry if you're used to everyone agreeing with you, but I find any suggestions about the "correct" way to play in a given dynamic extremely silly and dogmatic. There are countless possibilities that a pianist can choose from regarding visualisation. The selection is subjective- whether you understand the nature of subjectivity or not.

[lostinidlewonder]

"Because subjective means that people can take any opinion with no regard to what is normally done when it comes to playing the piano."

No. Being subjective means what the defintion I quoted earlier says. You cannot redefine the word for everybody, whether you would like to or not.

It is subjective for people to like something, it is not subjective to visualise energy coming from parts of the body it is contextual because it follows rules and pattern. I don't care what you copy paste from google, I ignored the entire post.  I did not redefine the word at all because ones OPINION is not the sole issue determining where visualisation of energy comes from, it is much more contextual depending on a piece of music.


"You start trying to pull down my ideas which I teach professionally I am of course am going to be very interested to see any evidence you have to convince me. Teaching is my profession and if I can be corrected or improved on issues (which pianostreet has done many times over) I happily will accept it
since I want the strongest teaching product as possible."

The onus of proof is on you.

You said what I said is subjective, so YOU have to prove that which you have not in anyway way at all. I highlighted how it is not subjective and directed you to the fact that fully describing a contextual issue is extremely large and based on experience.

Perhaps you're not used to being challenged by students, but this is a forum for open debate.

If you can point out any musical debate you have brought forth I will be amazed. Most of what you say is just pointless arguing and irrelevant and your fantasy. You do not challenge me.

Teaching is my profession too.  However, that is not an argument that I ever use in defence of anything I would claim to be objectively true.

Again this is you and your wizardy of tangenting and irrelevance and fantasy. I DID NOT say that because teaching is my profession it does anything but make me highly interested in teaching and discussing piano issues.

If something goes beyond subjectivity, I want to be damned sure I can prove it before referring to it that way. The onus of proof is on he who denies subjectivity.

I do not have to prove anything because it is YOU who stated what I am saying is Subjective, so prove it, you cannot. You say, I need to prove that it is not subjective of which I have already answered some points and then also highlighted that you need hundreds of examples to fully explain a contextual concept. Just because I will not write a thesis for you doesn't mean I cannot.

I dont care if you think I am being subjective when it comes to visualisng energy in the body and I will continually tell you my concept is contextual. So you will simply keep getting that response.


"If I ask all pianists to tell me how they produce the opening chords of say Beethovens Pathetique Sonata 1st movement I think all that all will approach the Cminor sustained chord with some hand or arm weight. Tell me which one of you open with these chords using only your fingertips and I will be very curious why you choose to do such strange things to produce volume."

I use no falling weight.

I did not mention falling into the notes.

I do it with hand movement.

This runs in line with hand weight. In all honesty if you quote me now and go off on the details of what the difference of hand weight and movement is I am totally going to ignore you because it is IRRELEVANT and I don't care it doens't interest me one iota to discuss it in this thread.

There are many ways to play those chords- not an objectively correct one.

There is a standard way in interpreting the opening chords which most people abibe by not many ways.

Also, I can use countless different visualisations while performing this specific movements.

So then your performance is not very consistient if you have COUNTLESS different visualisations for a single opening chord. What about the rest of the music? Is everything counless different visualisations? My god your brain must be working overtime.

The rest of your post is irrelevant and ignored.

[nyiregyhazi]

"It is subjective for people to like something, it is not subjective to visualise energy coming from parts of the body it is contextual because it follows rules and pattern."

According to which definition from which dictionary? It seems pretty clear that you are the only "dictionary" responsible for that. Contextual and subjective are not mutually exclusive. The movements I use for a given chord are applied to context. However, they are also entirely subjective- seeing I use altogether different visualisations and movement for the very same chord, depending on my mood. Quite what possesses you to believe that relating to a context exempts it from the issue of whether something objective or subjective, I have not the slightest idea.

"I don't care what you copy paste from google, I ignored the entire post.  I did not redefine the word at all because ones OPINION is not the sole issue determining where visualisation of energy comes from, it is much more contextual depending on a piece of music."

And neither is opinion an issue regarding the correct usage of a word. I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post, after this point. I am not going to continue a debate that is founded on failure to understand what subjectivity is.

I posted simply to point out that what you stated was individual and subjective- and had no desire to spend any more time on the issue. Enough time has been wasted here, so if you want to make claims that are based on an innaccurate definition of subjectivity, then post away.

[lostinidlewonder]

"It is subjective for people to like something, it is not subjective to visualise energy coming from parts of the body it is contextual because it follows rules and pattern."

According to which definition from which dictionary? It seems pretty clear that you are the only dictionary that defines

My visualisation of energy is not 100% based on opinion which would render it completely subjective. It is contextual.

"I don't care what you copy paste from google, I ignored the entire post.  I did not redefine the word at all because ones OPINION is not the sole issue determining where visualisation of energy comes from, it is much more contextual depending on a piece of music."

And neither is opinion an issue regarding the correct usage of a word. I didn't even bother reading the rest of your post, after this point.

Something that is subjective can be considered as ones personal opinion on the subject, this is not strange at all. Please feel free to ignore more of my posts in the future, your contribution in quoting me has not yeilded many interesting results.

[nyiregyhazi]

My visualisation of energy is not 100% based on opinion which would render it completely subjective. It is contextual.

Would you PLEASE just take out a dictionary? Things are either objective or subjective. Any introduction of subjectivity is enough for something to be deemed subjective. Being mildly related to an objective issue does not make subjective speculation into objective truth. I already explained that the reason why SOME of what you said relates to GENERAL tendencies is because it relates to something objective. That does not make your WHOLE list or the excessively precise specifics of it objective. Every detail would have be proved one by one. Objectively, the upper arm can apply a lot of energy. It doesn't take a genius to see why visualising energy coming from there might provide a lot of it. However, being PARTIALLY related to objective fact does not mean that all of your prescriptions for visualisation are therefore 100% objective or that there is a correct type for a given movement or musical passage. Subjective thinking about transferring energy from a place that cannot even move has nothing in common with the fact that thinking of movement from the shoulder can involve a great deal of literal energy. Once case is objective and the other is subjective.


When I play loud, I regularly perceive from the finger tips and think backwards- despite my objective realisation that the energy does not occur from the tip itself. If your explanation is not subjective, I'm am "wrong" to think this way. Well I work fine this way- so what you portrayed as objective is not. You have your way (which you insist is the only one) whereas I have my own (yet openly acknowledge the many alternatives to it). Of course movement occurs from further back (sometime at the knuckle, sometimes also at the shoulder) but my visualisation is regularly at the fingertips. That alone proves that your approach is every bit as subjective as my own.

The only difference is that you cannot acknowledge it. Do you think there's some sort of bizarre shame about openly realising that a specific way of visualising a movement is not the solitary possibility? I certainly don't. I'd actually be ashamed to claim something as silly as knowing the "correct" way to visualise the movement for each specific dynamic. There are may ways- including both approaches that focus on literal energy transfer and those that relate to metaphorical energy. You cannot impose a "correct" visualisation. What you can do is give broad, subjective guidelines.

[lostinidlewonder]

.....That does not make your WHOLE list or the excessively precise specifics of it objective. Every detail would have be proved one by one.

And I already have said this how many times now? It you YOU who put this visualisation of energy as the main focus on this thread, no one else. I told you I did NOT want to elaborate and prove every single instance with context.

When I play loud, I regularly perceive from the finger tips and think backwards- despite my objective realisation that the energy does not occur from the tip itself. If your explanation is not subjective, I'm am "wrong" to think this way.

Think backwards? Ok enjoy that. I also did not say loud come from the fingertips so how can you be wrong in terms of my visualisation?

You have your way (which you insist is the only one) whereas I have my own (yet openly acknowledge the many alternatives to it). Of course movement occurs from further back (sometime at the knuckle, sometimes also at the shoulder) but my visualisation is regularly at the fingertips. That alone proves that your approach is every bit as subjective as my own.

I don't care if you want to say my approach is subjective, it is not subjective it is contextual. I don't see anything new being discussed and you simply will get the same response.

The only difference is that you cannot acknowledge it.

I refuse to agree with your idea that my visualisations are subjective because it is obviously contextual, maybe that is annoying to you but you are not NEVER going to be able change that stance EVER.

Do you think there's some sort of bizarre shame about openly realising that a specific way of visualising a movement is not the solitary possibility?

My visualisation is contextual which means that there are multiple possibilities it depends on the fingering and technique undergone in a given piece of music. But this is not a surprise when you see differences and subtle change and bending of the visualisation of energy from the parts of our body when we deal with actual pieces. I think you realize that music is not measurable with unbendable rules 100% of the time and I am not arguing ever that it does.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I refuse to agree with your idea that my visualisations are subjective because it is obviously contextual, "

Would you please take the time to explain why the fact something applies to a context might render it exempt from concepts of objectivity and subjectivity? My approach to visualising the energy source within loud chords is contextual to loud chords. That does not mean that the details of how I personally care to visualise the action any less subjective. There are countless other approaches than my own which also work. The fact that your personal approach applies to a context does not stop it being your personal approach- which is what defines subjectivity. Why do you believe that you are in a position to refute the definition of accepted language?

I'm not sure what puzzles me the most, that you believe there is only one correct approach to visualisation of energy or the fact that you would sooner create your own definitions for words than admit personal error.

[lostinidlewonder]

Would you please take the time to explain why the fact something applies to a context might render it exempt from concepts of objectivity and subjectivity? My approach to visualising the energy source within loud chords is contextual to loud chords. That does render the details of how I personally care to visualise the action any less subjective. There are countless other approaches than my own. The fact that your personal approach applies to a context does not stop it being your personal approach- which is what defines subjectivity. Why do you believe that you are in a position to refute the definition of accepted language?

I believe I have already given my stance on this issue so lets not talk about subjectivity, objectivity or contextual concepts, we might find we have nothing more to share.

I'm not sure what puzzles me the most, that you believe there is only one correct approach to visualisation of energy or the fact that you would sooner create your own definitions for words than admit personal error.

This is all in your own head not mine.

[nyiregyhazi]

Let's break it down to a single question, Do you believe that where you personally visualise energy coming from for a given passage is the only correct way to visualise? Or do you acknowledge that there are other valid ways to go about it other than your own personal way and that these are used by many successful pianists?

In short, do you believe that you know the only acceptable way to mentally conceive of technique, or do you recognise that everybody thinks differently (even when performing similar movements) and that your own approach is personal to yourself?

[lostinidlewonder]

Let's break it down to a single question, Do you believe that where you personally visualise energy from for a given passage is the only correct way to visualise? Or do you acknowledge that there are other valid ways to go about it other than your own personal way?

In short, do you believe that you are know the only acceptable way to mentally conceive of technique, or do you recognise that there are others?

They all are similar but different, the main axioms of masterful piano technique all have similarities, but exactly how one produces it might have subtle differences. There are no massive differences when it comes to masterful technique. You will not have someone produce ffff tones visualising the energy only coming from their fingertips, so that is one example of a similarity between everyone. i again repeat that what I say is only one perspective and stance on the issue, certainly people can take other routes I have NEVER written anywhere that MY WAY is the ONLY WAY. But my method is a way and one which I have seen used by hundreds of pianists I have taught personally. Nowhere do I also state that my visualisation of energy has only a single way in using it, because it is applied to many pieces by its nature it is used in many ways depending on what the fingering/technique of the piece demands.

[nyiregyhazi]

"There are no massive differences when it comes to masterful technique. You will not have someone produce ffff tones visualising the energy only coming from their fingertips, so that is one example of a similarity between everyone."

So, it's not a "massive difference" if I largely view it from the knuckles- whereas you state that it should be visualised from the back? Not notable enough to make it abundantly obvious that our preferences for visualisation are highly subjective?


"i again repeat that what I say is only one perspective and stance on the issue, certainly people can take other routes I have NEVER written anywhere that MY WAY is the ONLY WAY."

Then it is subjective, by definition. Thankyou for clarifying that.  If you don't want to imply that you feel your way is the lone correct one, I would strongly recommend against denying that your personal take on visualisation of energy is subjective. If it were not subjective, your way would indeed be the only way.

[lostinidlewonder]

"There are no massive differences when it comes to masterful technique. You will not have someone produce ffff tones visualising the energy only coming from their fingertips, so that is one example of a similarity between everyone."

So, it's not a "massive difference" if I largely view it from the knuckles- whereas you state that it should be visualised from the back? Not notable enough to make it abundantly obvious that our preferences for visualisation are highly subjective?

If you ONLY produce ffff tones with your knuckles then you are in the minority. My method does not specify that certain tones must only come from certain points, since it is a contextual decription you will notice small changes.


"i again repeat that what I say is only one perspective and stance on the issue, certainly people can take other routes I have NEVER written anywhere that MY WAY is the ONLY WAY."

Then it is subjective, by definition. Thankyou for clarifying that.  If you don't want to imply that you feel your way is the lone correct one, I would strongly recommend against denying that your personal take on visualisation of energy is subjective. If it were not subjective, your way would indeed be the only way.

Well I never thought you where confused in believing my concept was subjective, it has been the fuel for all your discussion (which has not been a very musically educational one). My method will run in line with all normal pianists (it will be similar but different), but there are obscure pianists who will do completely otherwise, who is to say they shouldn't play the piano, they can do what they want, I really don't care

Again I will tell you I will NEVER agree with you that my stance is subjective, it is contextual, now stop running us around in circles. I will ignore any post you write about subjectivity or objectivity, i you are really interested PM me.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Because subjective means that people can take any opinion with no regard to what is normally done when it comes to playing the piano."

No it doesn't. It refers to anything that falls outside of absolute objectivity- anything that is founded upon personal preference and opinion. I'm not going to argue any further on an issue that stems from your preference for inventing personalised definition, rather than abiding by those produced by the linguistic scholars who write the dictionary. Your personal redefinition of a word (coupled with your personal rejection of its universally accepted and dictionary-accredited meaning) involves even greater subjectivity than your personal means of visualising technique.

[lostinidlewonder]

"Because subjective means that people can take any opinion with no regard to what is normally done when it comes to playing the piano."
I notice no PMs from you so you obviously have no interest in the issue and just want to make noise on an online forum, how peculiar.

....I'm not going to argue any further ......

Mission accomplished.